ArticleBMJ open2024
Does clinical experience influence the effects of team simulation training in stroke thrombolysis? A prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Education Research: Simulation-Based Interventions in Acute Stroke Care From Symptom Onset to Acute Treatment: A Scoping Review.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAfter introducing a team simulation training programme at our hospital, we saw a reduction in door-to-needle times (DNT) for stroke thrombolysis but persisting variability prompting further investigation. Our objective is to examine this gap through assessing: (1) whether there is an association between DNT and the clinical experience of neurology registrars and (2) whether experience influences the benefits from attending simulation.
designProspective cohort study. SETTING AND
participantsPatients treated with intravenous thrombolysis between January 2016 and 2020 at a Norwegian stroke centre. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using DNT and prior intravenous thrombolysis administrations (case-based definition of clinical experience) as continuous variables, a mixed effects linear regression model was performed to examine the association between clinical experience, DNT and simulation attendance. For dichotomised analyses, neurology registrars with 15 or more prior treatments were defined as experienced.
resultsA total of 532 patients treated by 36 neurology registrars from January 2016 to 2020 were included. There was a linear association between clinical experience and DNT (test for non-linearity p=0.479). Each prior intravenous thrombolysis administration was associated with a significant 1.1% decrease in DNT in the adjusted analysis (ΔDNT -1.1%; 95% CI, -2.2% to -0.0%; p=0.048). The interaction between effects of clinical experience and simulation on DNT was not statistically significant (p=0.150). In the dichotomised analysis, experienced registrars had similar gains from attending simulation sessions (mean DNT from 18.5 min to 13.5 min) compared with less experienced registrars (mean DNT from 22.4 min to 17.4 min).
conclusionsLess experienced registrars had longer DNT in stroke thrombolysis. Attending team simulation training was associated with similar improvements for experienced and inexperienced neurology registrars. We suggest a focus on high-quality onboarding programmes to close the experience-related quality gap. Our findings suggest that both inexperienced and experienced neurology registrars might benefit from team simulation training for stroke thrombolysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.